⚖️ The Moscow Arbitrazh Court Refuses to Set Aside MAC Award, Rejecting Lack-of-Notice Arguments: Respondent Was Notified by Email and Actively Participated in the Proceedings

A tribunal of the Maritime Arbitration Commission at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (MAC at the RF CCI) rendered an award ordering ING-SHIPPING LLC (the applicant) to pay Sea & River Shipping Company LLC (the respondent) demurrage, interest, and the costs of the registration and arbitration fees.

The applicant filed an application with the Moscow Arbitrazh Court seeking to set aside the arbitral award, arguing that the arbitration had been commenced without proper notice to it and that the arbitrator had been selected and appointed without taking its views into account.

The Moscow Arbitrazh Court disagreed with the applicant and refused to set aside the award for the following reasons:

🔘The arbitral award states that the MAC at the RF CCI notified both parties by email of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The case file confirms that both parties received the notification and raised no objections to the composition of the tribunal;

🔘The applicant actively participated in the arbitral proceedings. For example, it submitted a statement of defence in which, responding to the tribunal's correspondence, it stated that the question of whether to hold an oral hearing should be left to the tribunal's discretion;

🔘The applicant accepted the tribunal's jurisdiction by presenting its position on the merits of the dispute without challenging the tribunal's jurisdiction. It also did not challenge the appointment of any arbitrator or raise any objections regarding the procedure for constituting the tribunal.

Accordingly, the court concluded that there were no grounds for setting aside the arbitral award in this case.

📎The court's decision is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ The Moscow Arbitrazh Court Refused to Set Aside an ICAC Award Rendered Against a Russian Company, Holding that a Party’s Inadequate Participation in the Arbitration Does Not in Itself Mean that the Party Was Deprived of the Opportunity to Present Its Case

A tribunal of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC at the RF CCI) issued an award in favor of the German company Hellmann Poultry GmbH & Co. KG (the interested party) against ECO AGRO GLOBAL LLC (the applicant, a Russian company), ordering the respondent to pay outstanding debt, contractual penalties, and the registration and arbitration fees incurred in the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application with the Moscow Arbitrazh Court seeking to set aside the award. It argued that the ICAC had failed to provide it with an opportunity to present its defense on the merits and had not properly notified it of the time and place of the hearing.

The Moscow Arbitrazh Court dismissed the application, relying on the following grounds:

🔘The arbitration file contained evidence that the statement of claim and supporting documents had been sent to the applicant, with the delivery status confirming successful receipt;

🔘The arbitration file also included a letter from the applicant’s representative explaining that the ICAC’s earlier correspondence had been automatically classified as spam and, therefore, had not been identified in a timely manner;

🔘The parties had raised no objections to the composition of the arbitral tribunal and had agreed that the arbitral award would be final;

🔘The applicant did participate in the proceedings: it requested an extension of time to submit its statement of defense, although the defense was ultimately filed after the prescribed deadline. The court emphasized that the applicant’s failure to exercise its procedural rights properly did not, in itself, demonstrate that it had been prevented from presenting its case;

🔘The court further held that the arbitral tribunal’s application of foreign law lacking direct counterparts in Russian law, the respondent’s non-participation in the arbitration, and the debtor’s failure to object to the enforcement of the arbitral award do not, in themselves, constitute a violation of the public policy of the Russian Federation.

📎The court's ruling is available here.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ Whatever the FAS and the Ministry of Finance May Say, They Remain Arbitrable: The Moscow Arbitrazh Court Confirms the Arbitrability of Disputes Arising from Contracts under Federal Law No. 223-FZ on procurement

VEGA LLC (the claimant) filed a claim with the Moscow Arbitrazh Court against NIKIMT-Atomstroy JSC (the respondent), seeking to invalidate a contractual clause providing that disputes arising out of the contract would be resolved by arbitration administered by one of three Russian arbitral institutions, at the claimant's choice.

The contract had been concluded pursuant to Federal Law No. 223-FZ, which governs procurement by certain categories of legal entities.

Relying on the positions expressed by the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) (Letter No. МШ/26277/23 of 7 April 2023) and the Russian Ministry of Finance (Letter No. 24-02-2023-6112505/129773 of 29 December 2022), the claimant argued that contracts concluded through procurement procedures must contain an alternative dispute resolution clause allowing the parties to choose between the state commercial courts and arbitration.

The court dismissed the claim for the following reasons:

🔘Disputes arising out of procurement relations governed by Federal Law No. 223-FZ are not listed in Article 33(2) of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as non-arbitrable. Accordingly, such disputes remain arbitrable. Nor is there any other law excluding their arbitrability. Moreover, paragraph 16 of the Review of Court Practice on Judicial Assistance to and Control over Arbitral Tribunals and International Commercial Arbitration (approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 26 December 2018) confirms the private-law nature of disputes arising from contracts concluded following procurement procedures under Federal Law No. 223-FZ;

🔘The court also rejected the claimant's reliance on the FAS and Ministry of Finance letters, noting that they merely contain general guidance on the application of the law and do not constitute binding normative legal acts.

Accordingly, the court refused to declare the disputed arbitration clause invalid.

📎The full text of the court's decision is available here.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ The St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Arbitrazh Court Reiterates that, Absent Targeted Sanctions Against a Party and the Subject Matter of the Dispute, There Are No Grounds for Applying the Lugovoy Law

Intervtorresurs LLC (the applicant, purchaser) entered into a framework agreement with Icdas Celik Enerjy Tersane Ve Ulasim Sanayi A.S. (Turkey) and Vanomet AG (Switzerland), acting as the seller and sub-seller, respectively. The agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the LCIA Rules, with the seat of arbitration in London.

The respondents commenced LCIA arbitration. The tribunal consisted of two arbitrators from the United Kingdom and one arbitrator from Uganda. After receiving Procedural Order No. 1, the applicant applied to the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Arbitrazh Court seeking an injunction prohibiting the respondents from "initiating international commercial arbitration proceedings" (although the arbitration had already been commenced). In support of its application, the applicant argued as follows:

👀The restrictive measures imposed against Russia deprived it of the ability to effectively protect its rights before foreign courts and arbitral tribunals. According to the applicant, such measures prevented it from preparing both its substantive and procedural case, including with due regard to the law governing the parties' relationship, and from engaging competent legal representatives. The applicant also referred to restrictions on Russian persons' access to information regarding quotations on the London Metal Exchange;

👀Apart from Procedural Order No. 1, the applicant had not received the procedural documents in the arbitration, including the request for arbitration, submissions, responses, evidence, counterclaims, or other procedural communications.

The St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Arbitrazh Court rejected the application, relying on the following findings:

🔘There was no evidence that the applicant was subject to targeted, indefinite restrictive measures, including those imposed by the European Union;

🔘The applicant failed to identify any specific circumstances demonstrating that it faced substantial obstacles in protecting its rights in accordance with the arbitration agreement. Nor did it establish that its rights and interests could be effectively protected only in Russia;

🔘The dispute did not arise as a result of restrictive measures imposed by the state where the arbitration was seated—namely, the United Kingdom.

Accordingly, the court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction under Article 248.2 of the Russian Arbitrazh Procedure Code against the foreign parties in connection with the LCIA arbitration.

👀 The case was first reported by "Арбитражный атлас", which also shared details of the proceedings.

📎The full text of the court's ruling is available here.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

👔 The Warrior-Lawyer and His Word Is Always at the Ready

Socioservice LLC (the applicant) filed an application with the Arbitrazh Court of the Republic of Tatarstan seeking the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce an arbitral award rendered by the private legal protection institution, the Warrior-Lawyer Bureau.

The court refused to issue a writ of execution for the arbitral award, citing the following reasons:

🔘Within a short period of time, the applicant filed a large number of similar applications with arbitrazh courts across numerous regions of Russia, constituting an abuse of procedural rights and being "contrary to the public policy of the Russian Federation";

🔘"The contents of the arbitral award indicate that the dispute arises from matters governed by criminal and criminal procedure law, which precludes consideration of the application within the framework of commercial arbitration proceedings";

🔘The Warrior-Lawyer Bureau is not a permanent arbitral institution and therefore lacks the authority to administer arbitration proceedings.
The arbitral award itself was rendered by the applicant's own director acting as the sole arbitrator.

We also noted that the flamboyant Warrior-Lawyer Bureau had previously filed a barrage of applications seeking to have the Bank of Russia declared bankrupt. Long-time readers and fans of the Lugovoy Law will agree that even A.I. Kuznetsov—well known for filing lawsuits by the hundreds—would have to take his hat off.

📎The court ruling is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ You Can't Step into the Mississippi Three Times: Persistent Policyholders Fail to Litigate in Louisiana Instead of Arbitrating in London—and End Up Paying for Their Persistence

Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd. (the insurer), incorporated in Bermuda, issued a property insurance policy to Fertitta Entertainment, Inc., a U.S. hospitality holding company, extending coverage to its affiliated companies (the claimants). The policy provided that all disputes were to be resolved by arbitration seated in London, with the arbitration agreement governed by English law.

In 2020, several affiliated companies commenced two separate proceedings before Louisiana state courts seeking insurance indemnity for losses allegedly caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. They argued that, under Louisiana law, arbitration agreements covering insurance disputes are invalid.

Maintaining that both actions had been brought in breach of the arbitration agreement, the insurer obtained an interim anti-suit injunction from the High Court of England and Wales in 2025 restraining the claimants from pursuing the Louisiana proceedings. In response, the claimants obtained a temporary restraining order in Louisiana preventing the insurer from seeking relief in the English courts or commencing arbitration in London. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later vacated that order, holding that the Louisiana courts lacked jurisdiction.

The claimants subsequently filed a third action in Louisiana, arguing that the insurer had waived its right to arbitrate by seeking an anti-suit injunction in England. That action was also dismissed in light of the Fifth Circuit's ruling.

The insurer then returned to the English court seeking a final anti-suit injunction and more than USD 700,000 in damages, representing the legal costs incurred in defending the second Louisiana proceeding.

The claimants argued that the arbitration agreement was invalid under Louisiana law and that Louisiana was the proper forum conveniens. The High Court rejected those arguments, holding that:

🔘The validity of the arbitration agreement had to be determined under English law, as agreed by the parties;

🔘The law governing the main contract and the law governing the arbitration agreement are separate, in line with Enka v Chubb and UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC;

🔘English law recognizes the validity of arbitration agreements in insurance policies;

🔘Giving priority to the "appropriate forum" would undermine the parties' contractual choice of dispute resolution.

The High Court of England and Wales therefore granted a final anti-suit injunction prohibiting the claimants from pursuing the Louisiana proceedings and awarded the insurer the full amount of damages claimed for breach of the arbitration agreement.

📎The judgment is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

☝️ UEFA Considers Proceedings Against FIFA Over Planned Sale of Stake to Company Owned by Donald Trump's Relative

Last week, FIFA President Gianni Infantino announced plans to establish a subsidiary, FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE), which would manage FIFA's flagship competitions, including the FIFA World Cup. Under the proposal, a 21% stake in FFE was to be sold to a group of private investors led by Thrive Eternal. Thrive Eternal is owned by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Donald Trump's son-in-law.

UEFA and several other football confederations opposed the proposed transaction and announced that they would boycott the FIFA World Cup if the deal went ahead. Under the proposed boycott, no national team from those confederations would participate in the tournament. The European Commissioner for Sport also criticized the transaction, stating that it raises "important competition law issues." FIFA subsequently abandoned the proposal.

Nevertheless, UEFA has sent a letter to Gianni Infantino and Joshua Kushner stating that it is "actively considering legal action, arbitration, and/or regulatory complaints." The letter also requires FIFA and Thrive Eternal to "take immediate steps to identify, locate, and preserve all documents and electronically stored information" relating to the proposed sale of FFE shares to investors.

UEFA further warned that any destruction or loss of evidence could be treated as obstruction of the investigation and reserved its right to seek appropriate remedies, including applications for arbitral adverse inference orders, sanctions, and recovery of costs against the responsible parties.

According to GAR, Switzerland—where both FIFA and UEFA are headquartered—does not provide US- or UK-style disclosure or discovery in arbitration proceedings. As a result, parties may seek to obtain relevant information through parallel engagement with public authorities, particularly where investigations or claims involving fraud or dishonest conduct are pursued alongside the arbitration.

Any arbitration is expected to be commenced before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with FIFA's Statutes.

📎The GAR article is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ A practical guide to enforcing arbitral awards for foreign creditors: the Sverdlovsk Region Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court issued a writ of execution for an ICC award with its seat in Moscow concerning a debt assigned by a Dutch company

Brimium LLC (respondent), as buyer, and Dema Baarn B.V. (the Netherlands), as seller, entered into a contract for the supply of flexible ceramic products to China. The parties agreed on Russian law and an ICC arbitration clause with a three-member tribunal seated in Moscow.

In 2024, Dema Baarn B.V. assigned its claim to Baltalex Legal Agency LLC (applicant), which had previously acted as the Dutch company's agent.

The applicant initially filed a claim with the Sverdlovsk Region Commercial Court seeking recovery of the debt and statutory interest under Article 395 of the Russian Civil Code (Case No. A60-49371/2024). The court dismissed the claim without considering the merits, upholding the arbitration agreement. It found that no restrictive measures had been imposed on either party; the dispute was unrelated to sanctions; and the ICC Russia Arbitration Commission had not ceased its operations.

The applicant then commenced ICC arbitration in Moscow. The dispute was resolved under the expedited procedure by a sole arbitrator, who awarded the applicant EUR 335,000 (in rouble equivalent) plus statutory interest.

The applicant sought recognition and enforcement. The respondent objected, arguing that:

👀The assignment was a valid transaction because the parties were affiliated and the applicant was to remit 75% to the Dutch company (separate proceedings challenging the assignment are pending in the Kaliningrad Region Commercial Court);

👀Enforcement would violate public policy by circumventing the special regime for obligations owed to creditors from unfriendly states;

👀An award in euros between two Russian residents would breach currency regulations;

👀The tribunal was improperly constituted as a sole arbitrator decided the dispute;

👀The respondent had not been properly notified.

The court rejected all objections, holding that:

🔘Presidential Decree No. 95 does not establish a special regime for performing supply contract obligations owed to foreign creditors;

🔘The payment mechanism under the assignment does not render it a invalid;

🔘Enforcement is effected in roubles and therefore does not violate currency regulations;

🔘By agreeing to ICC arbitration, the parties accepted the ICC Rules, including the expedited procedure and tribunal constitution;

🔘The respondent failed to challenge jurisdiction during arbitration and thus waived the objection at enforcement;

🔘The respondent actively participated and could not rely on improper notice;

🔘"The mere issuance of a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of an arbitral award rendered by an arbitral institution under the jurisdiction of an unfriendly state does not violate the fundamental principles of the economic, political and legal system of the Russian Federation."

The court granted enforcement of the ICC award.

📎The court's decision is available via the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ Not all roads lead to annulment: the Moscow Commercial Court found no violation of Russian public policy arising from a foreign element on the creditor's side

Axioma Investment Company LLC (applicant), as purchaser, and KTI LLC (respondent) together with Capstans Holding Limited (Cyprus), as sellers, entered into a share purchase agreement concerning interests in MT Tuloma LLC. The agreement contained an arbitration clause in favor of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.

The applicant paid only part of the purchase price, and the respondent commenced arbitration. The tribunal rendered an award ordering the applicant to pay more than RUB 80 million representing the unpaid purchase price, together with a contractual penalty of 0.1% for each day of delay.

The applicant filed an application to set aside the award, while the respondent filed a counter-application for a writ of execution.

The applicant argued that:

👀Enforcement would violate public policy because it would contravene Presidential Decree No. 618, as Capstans is incorporated in Cyprus, an "unfriendly" state, and recovery would allegedly circumvent the special authorization regime;

👀The tribunal failed to examine whether the respondent was controlled by residents of "unfriendly" states;

👀The award was insufficiently reasoned, no transcript was prepared, the tribunal inaccurately reproduced the applicant's explanations, and relied on unrecorded objections;

👀The tribunal misinterpreted the contract and "effectively imposed on the applicant a term that had not been agreed, allowing the respondent to benefit from its own drafting error";

👀The contractual penalty was punitive.

The court dismissed the application, holding that:

🔘Decree No. 618 was inapplicable because it governs transactions establishing, modifying, or terminating rights to interests in charter capital, whereas the dispute concerned recovery of a monetary debt under a share purchase agreement concluded before the Decree entered into force;

🔘The tribunal was composed entirely of Russian citizens, so no presumption of lack of impartiality arose;

🔘The respondent is a Russian legal entity with an account at a Russian bank;

🔘The award contains a section setting out all arguments and the tribunal's reasoning, while under the ICAC Rules a transcript is prepared only at the tribunal's discretion;

🔘The allegation of inaccurate recording was unsupported by evidence;

🔘The applicant's disagreement with the tribunal's findings of fact and application of law does not constitute grounds for setting aside.

The court dismissed the application to set aside and granted the counter-application for a writ of execution.

📎The judicial act is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ Svea Court of Appeal refuses Russian party’s challenge to SCC award over untimely evidence

The Russian JSC “Soyuzparfumerprom Mobile Mechanized Column” (claimant), as buyer, and an Italian manufacturer (respondent), as supplier, entered into an agreement for the supply of equipment to Russia (the Agreement). The Agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC).

In early 2022, the respondent informed the claimant that it was unable to perform its contractual obligations due to force majeure and declared the Agreement terminated. Disagreeing with the respondent’s actions, the claimant commenced SCC arbitration. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the termination was lawful due to the existence of valid force majeure circumstances.

The claimant applied to the Svea Court of Appeal to set aside the award, arguing that:

👀When interpreting the contractual requirement to deliver the goods through a “reliable carrier,” the tribunal unjustifiably concluded that the carrier was required to guarantee safe delivery even in circumstances involving hostilities risks;

👀The tribunal unlawfully refused to allow the claimant to submit additional evidence and arguments after determining the meaning of that contractual provision;

👀As a result, the tribunal was manifestly biased and the arbitrators therefore lacked authority to adjudicate the dispute.

The Svea Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s arguments and upheld the award, relying on the following considerations:

🔘The tribunal had carried out an ordinary contractual interpretation based on the evidence submitted and the applicable principles of transport law, and had not attached particular significance to the contractual reference to a “reliable carrier”;

🔘The refusal to admit the claimant’s new evidence was justified because the evidence had been submitted in breach of the procedural timetable;

🔘The tribunal had acted within the permissible scope of its discretion in conducting the arbitration, and the claimant’s allegations of bias were therefore frivolous;

🔘Among other things, the tribunal’s raising the issue of the meaning of the “reliable carrier” provision did not demonstrate any lack of impartiality on the part of the arbitrators;

🔘Each party had been given an opportunity to submit written observations during post-hearing briefs, thereby ensuring procedural equality of the parties.

Accordingly, the Svea Court of Appeal refused the Russian claimant’s application to set aside the arbitral award.

📎An analysis of the court’s decision is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ A Russian Circuit Court confirms that registration of a creditor in an “unfriendly” state does not automatically preclude recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award in its favor

Schlumberger Logelco, Inc., Panama, as contractor (applicant), and Chepakovskoye Oil Production Enterprise LLC, as customer (respondent), entered into an agreement for integrated services, including engineering and technical support for the construction of wells with horizontal completions at the Chepakovskoye field in the Stavropol Region. Under the agreement, if the contractor’s equipment was lost in a well, the customer was required to pay the contractor the full replacement cost of equivalent new equipment. The agreement also contained an arbitration clause in favor of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.

Following an incident that made it impossible to retrieve the equipment from the well, the applicant commenced arbitration. The arbitral tribunal partially upheld the applicant’s claims, ordering the respondent to pay more than RUB 60 million in property losses and USD 30,000 in registration and arbitration fees.

The applicant applied to the Stavropol Region Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court for a writ of execution for compulsory enforcement of the arbitral award. The respondent objected, relying on the following grounds:

👀The applicant’s corporate structure provided for full control by a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, a British Overseas Territory included in the list of “unfriendly” states;

👀Enforcement of the award in favor of an applicant controlled by a company from an “unfriendly” jurisdiction would contravene Russian countermeasures and, consequently, Russian public policy.

The court rejected the respondent’s arguments and issued a writ of execution for the award. The respondent appealed the first-instance ruling to the North Caucasus District Commercial Court, reiterating the same arguments.

The North Caucasus Circuit Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court likewise rejected the respondent’s arguments, relying on the following considerations:

🔘The foreign company’s claim was not subject to the special regime governing the performance of obligations to foreign counterparties established by Presidential Decrees;

🔘Enforcement of the arbitral award would be effected through the applicant’s Russian representative office, which was consistent with the applicable countermeasures; and

🔘“The mere fact that the applicant is incorporated in an unfriendly state, in the absence of the transaction in question being subject to restrictions and the applicant being included in the list of legal entities subject to special economic measures, cannot in itself constitute grounds for the debtor (a Russian entity) to refuse to perform its obligations, where the arbitral tribunal has established, and the company has not disputed, the existence of its obligations to the applicant.”

Accordingly, the court found no grounds to set aside the first-instance ruling and dismissed the respondent’s cassation appeal.

📎The judicial act is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ Federal Supreme Court of Germany held that sanctions and a no-claims clause do not justify requiring russian party to provide security for costs in violation of the Hague Convention

A Russian company, as buyer (claimant), and a German company, as seller (respondent), entered into a sales agreement for equipment in 2021. The agreement provided for three deliveries and contained an arbitration clause in favor of the ICAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The first two deliveries were duly performed; however, following the events of February 2022, the respondent failed to make the third delivery.

The claimant commenced arbitration under the ICAC Rules. The arbitral tribunal rendered an award in the claimant’s favor, ordering the respondent to pay more than EUR 186,000 plus interest.

The claimant subsequently applied to the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart for recognition and enforcement of the award in Germany. The court held that, at that time, enforcement of the award would conflict with sanctions imposed on Russian persons and, consequently, with German public policy, and dismissed the application.

In the course of the proceedings, the respondent applied for an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs by depositing funds with the court. Under German law, such security may be required from a party to proceedings that is not resident in an EU Member State in order to ensure the opposing party’s ability to recover legal costs. However, this rule does not apply where an international treaty provides otherwise.

The issue of security for costs in this case was governed by the 1954 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure (the Convention), to which both Russia and Germany are parties. Article 17 of the Convention prohibits requiring security solely on the ground of a party’s foreign nationality. The court therefore dismissed the respondent’s application.

Disagreeing with the refusal to recognize and enforce the arbitral award, the claimant appealed the first-instance decision to the Federal Supreme Court of Germany.

In the same proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court, the respondent again sought security for costs, relying on the following arguments:

👀Under EU sanctions regulations, courts within the EU are prohibited from granting claims brought by sanctioned persons (the “no-claims clause”);

👀The Convention was inapplicable pursuant to Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (clausula rebus sic stantibus). The Convention should be regarded as having ceased to apply because of a fundamental change of circumstances, in particular the deterioration of Russian-German commercial relations and the alleged unwillingness of Russian courts to provide assistance in cross-border procedural matters.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected both arguments, holding that:

🔘The no-claims clause concerns substantive matters only and does not apply to procedural issues;

🔘The exemption from security for costs is based solely on the existence of an international-law obligation, rather than on the practical enforceability of future judgments;

🔘Neither Germany nor Russia has withdrawn from the Convention, and it therefore remains in force.

Accordingly, the Federal Supreme Court of Germany held that there were no grounds to require the Russian company to provide security for costs on the basis of its nationality.

📎The decision of the Federal Supreme Court of Germany is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ Court Refused to Recognize Nigerian Court Judgment Issued Nearly 20 Years Ago – A Detailed Look at Nigerian Procedural Law

In 2005, SPAO Ingosstrakh (the interested party) and Tahoma Enterprises Ltd. (the shipowner, Nigeria) entered into a shipowner's civil liability insurance contract, which also covered liability for cargo. Under the terms of the contract, all disputes were to be resolved by the Maritime Arbitration Commission (MAC) at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation.

In 2006, Gales Maritime Inc. (charterer) contracted with the shipowner to carry frozen fish to Nigeria for consignee Fiogret Ltd. (applicant). During a port call in Liberia, a fire damaged part of the cargo, leading the applicant to sue the shipowner and charterer in the Federal High Court of Lagos. The interested party was initially a defendant, then removed, and later joined as a third party, enabling enforcement against its assets.

In 2008, the court awarded over USD 1.6 million in damages to the applicant against the shipowner and charterer (Judgment No. 1), and simultaneously awarded the same amount in insurance indemnity against the interested party in favor of the shipowner and charterer (Judgment No. 2). The claim against the interested party was later assigned to the applicant for USD 1.

The applicant applied to the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow for recognition and enforcement in Russia of Judgment No. 2. Among other things, the applicant stated that the Nigerian court had jurisdiction because the applicant was not a party to the arbitration agreement in favor of the MAC at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The applicant also argued that the three-year time limit for seeking recognition and enforcement had not expired, since Judgment No. 2 had only become final after the Supreme Court of Nigeria upheld it in 2021.

The interested party objected to the enforcement of the Nigerian judgment, relying inter alia on the following arguments:

👀Recognition of the judgment would be contrary to Russian public policy, because the Nigerian court had heard the dispute despite the arbitration agreement, and Judgment No. 2 had awarded insurance indemnity for a non-insurable event;

👀The interested party had not been properly notified of the proceedings in Nigeria: the courier service's report contained an error in the street name;

👀The time limit for filing the application for recognition of the foreign judgment had already expired, because Judgment No. 2 had become final at the time it was issued in 2008.

During the proceedings, the parties submitted expert opinions on Nigerian law that conflicted with each other. Upon the parties' motion, the court sent a request for an opinion to the Ministry of Justice of Nigeria, whose conclusions on 10 issues were set out in detail in the court's ruling. The opinion contains findings based on the 1958 New York Convention. The opinion has it all: we learned what Fi-Fa means (not football-related), that Nigeria has sheriffs, brushed up on French legal terms, and read American precedents. We are confident that the judge of the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow is now fully armed to pass an exam on Nigerian procedure.

Having become well-versed in Nigerian law, the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow rejected the applicant's arguments, relying primarily on the following grounds:

🔘When recognizing a foreign judgment, the court is not entitled to review the merits of the judgment itself, so the interested party's argument about the recovery of insurance indemnity for a non-insurable event was irrelevant;

🔘The Nigerian court had established proper notification of the interested party;

🔘Under Nigerian law, a judgment becomes final immediately upon its issuance, so Judgment No. 2 became final at the time it was issued in 2008, and the time limit for its recognition in Russia had already expired.

As a result, the Arbitration Court of the City of Moscow refused to recognize and enforce the Nigerian court judgment in Russia.

📎The judicial act is available via the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

☝️ UNCITRAL Adopts Long-Awaited Amendments Expressly Permitting Electronic Arbitration Agreements, Awards and Arbitration Communications by Email

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), at its 59th annual session in New York, adopted a series of instruments aimed at simplifying the recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards in electronic form and facilitating electronic communications in international commercial arbitration. The package was prepared by Working Group II on Dispute Resolution as part of the project on the digital economy, based on an initiative put forward by Japan in 2024, as well as proposals from Bahrain, Switzerland and Mexico.

The amendments were introduced through “soft law” rather than by amending the New York Convention itself, as such a measure would have required the consent of all 170 States parties to the Convention.

Under the adopted recommendation, the New York Convention should be interpreted so that a national court may not refuse recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award solely on the ground that the award is in electronic form.

The following amendments were also made to the UNCITRAL Model Law:

🔘Article 2 (Definitions): an award in electronic form also constitutes an arbitration award for the purposes of the Model Law;

🔘Article 3 (Exchange of Written Communications): an electronic communication is deemed to have been received if the method of transmission allows the sending of the communication to a designated electronic address to be recorded. An electronic communication is deemed to have been received on the date on which it is sent, while an electronic notice of arbitration is deemed to have been received on the date on which it reaches the addressee’s electronic address;

🔘Article 7 (Arbitration Agreement): the requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing is satisfied by electronic communication where the information contained in the electronic communication is accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference;

🔘Article 31 (Form and Contents of an Award): where the parties have expressly agreed, or in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the parties are deemed to have agreed to the issuance of an arbitration award in electronic form;

🔘Article 35 (Recognition and Enforcement): recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award in electronic form may not be refused solely on the ground that the award was issued in electronic form.

The updated UNCITRAL Notes on Organizing Arbitral Proceedings instruct arbitral tribunals to consult with the parties in advance when issuing an arbitration award in electronic form regarding any specific requirements or restrictions applicable in the jurisdiction where enforcement of the award is contemplated.

UNCITRAL Chair Ann-Jouban Bré emphasized that the amendments “respond to the trend towards the digitalization of trade and build on UNCITRAL’s existing framework for electronic commerce, ensuring interoperability between the existing architecture of arbitration regulation and the digital economy.”

📎The news release is available at the link. The text of the amendments is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ The Moscow City Court Granted an Application for Recognition and Enforcement of a DIAC Award in Favor of a UAE Company Against a Russian Individual

A contract was concluded between Vitoil Limited Company (the Company), United Kingdom, and SIBET FZCO (the Claimant), UAE. To secure the Company’s obligations under the main contract, a guarantee agreement was also concluded between the Claimant and a Russian individual (the Interested Party). The guarantee agreement contained an arbitration clause in favor of DIAC.

Since the Company failed to perform its obligations, the Claimant initiated DIAC arbitration proceedings against the Interested Party under the guarantee agreement. During the arbitration, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, under which the Interested Party was obliged to make payments to the Claimant in accordance with an approved schedule. In case of non-payment, interest at the rate of 19% per annum was also to accrue on the principal debt. The parties' settlement agreement was approved by a DIAC arbitral award on agreed terms.

The Interested Party paid only part of the established amounts; therefore, the Claimant applied to the Moscow City Court for recognition and enforcement of the DIAC arbitral award.

The Interested Party, in turn, objected to the granting of the application, arguing its position on the following grounds:

👀 The case is not within the jurisdiction of the Moscow City Court, as it should be heard by the Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court of Moscow;

👀 The Claimant did not provide evidence of reciprocity of enforcement of arbitral awards in Russia and the UAE, nor of an international treaty between Russia and the UAE on mutual recognition of arbitral awards, which would make it impossible to recognize the DIAC arbitral award in Russia;

👀 The Interested Party was not properly notified of the commencement of the arbitration proceedings;

👀 The debt arising from the parties' settlement agreement has already been partially repaid by the Interested Party, which prevents the recognition of the arbitral award in Russia.

The Moscow City Court disagreed with the Interested Party’s position and relied on the following circumstances:

🔘 Russia and the UAE are parties to the New York Convention; therefore, the Interested Party’s argument regarding the absence of an international treaty between Russia and the UAE on mutual recognition of arbitral awards is not relevant;

🔘 The mechanism for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards established by the New York Convention also applies to arbitral awards rendered in disputes between individuals;

🔘 Since the Interested Party is an individual registered in Moscow, the Moscow City Court is the competent court to hear the Claimant's petition;

🔘 The Interested Party was duly notified of the commencement of the arbitration and also actively participated in the process of appointing arbitrators;

🔘 The circumstances of partial repayment of the debt are taken into account to reduce the amount to be recovered but cannot serve as a ground for refusing the application to enforce the arbitral award;

🔘 The Russian Ministry of Justice included DIAC in the register of PDAUs (Permanent Arbitration Institutions) in 2026, which indicates that there are no obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award issued by it.

As a result, the Moscow City Court granted the application for recognition and enforcement of the DIAC arbitral award on the territory of the Russian Federation.

📎 Information on the case can be found at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here.

⚖️ When "fraud" committed by filing an application for enforcement of an arbitral award, fabricated arbitrator challenges, and a Russian Ministry of Justice warning did not help: scandals, intrigues, and investigations in the Arbitrazh Court of the Tomsk Region

LLC "Gazprom Methanol" (the Claimant), as the customer, and LLC "Tomskneftegazproekt" (the Interested Party), as the contractor, entered into a contract for design and survey work. The contract contained an arbitration clause in favor of the Arbitration Center under the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization "NIRA TEK" (ANO "NIRA TEK")

The Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings at the Arbitration Center under ANO "NIRA TEK" seeking recovery of penalties, registration and arbitration fees, and termination of the contract. The arbitral tribunal rendered a decision fully satisfying the Claimant's claims.

The Claimant applied to the Commercial Court of the Tomsk Region for a writ of execution to enforce the arbitral award. The Interested Party objected to the issuance of the writ, citing the following circumstances:

👀 The application for a writ of execution constitutes "fraud";

👀 The arbitral tribunal ignored the application for challenge of arbitrators;

👀 The arbitral tribunal also did not consider the Interested Party's application for the application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation;

👀 The Russian Ministry of Justice issued a warning to the Arbitration Center under ANO "NIRA TEK" regarding violations of the deadlines for notifying the parties of the commencement of arbitration and the formation of the arbitral tribunal;

👀 The information contained in the arbitral award does not correspond to reality.

The Commercial Court of the Tomsk Region rejected the Interested Party's arguments based on the following circumstances of the case:

🔘 The Interested Party did not challenge the arbitrators and did not prove any interest of the arbitral tribunal in the outcome of the dispute. Likewise, it did not submit a written petition for the application of Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Interested Party did not file a response to the statement of claim in the arbitration, did not request an extension of the deadline for submitting it, and did not prove that it was unable to submit a response;

🔘 The Interested Party was duly notified of the commencement of the arbitration proceedings and of the scheduled hearing. A representative of the Interested Party participated in the oral hearing via video conference;

🔘 The warning issued by the Russian Ministry of Justice to the Arbitration Center under ANO "NIRA TEK" regarding violations of the deadlines for notifying the parties of the commencement of arbitration and the formation of the arbitral tribunal does not indicate that "the arbitral tribunal prevented the Interested Party from exercising its right to judicial protection";

🔘 Criminal proceedings against the arbitrators were dismissed, which was confirmed by the Interested Party;

🔘 The Interested Party relies on new evidence that was not presented in the arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the Interested Party's arguments are aimed at reassessing the findings of the arbitral tribunal, which is impermissible.

Thus, the Commercial Court of the Tomsk Region issued a writ of execution for the enforcement of the arbitral award.

📎 The court's decision can be accessed via the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ At the will of the Russian party, arbitration shall proceed – Russian Court held that a dispute between a Cypriot and a Russian company must be resolved under LMAA Rules

LLC "D.N.K." (the Claimant, shipowner) and LLC "Nizhegorodskaya Logisticheskaya Kompaniya" (the Respondent, charterer) entered into 15 standard bareboat charter agreements.

The agreements contained arbitration clauses in favor of arbitration under the rules of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA).

Notwithstanding the arbitration clauses provided for in the agreements, the Claimant filed a claim with the Commercial Court of the Nizhny Novgorod Region against the Respondent for recovery of arrears in the amount of RUB 409 million under the charter agreements.

Subsequently, the Claimant assigned its rights under the charter agreements to a Cypriot company – AAS Amur Assets Shipping Company Limited, on the basis of which the court effected a procedural substitution of the Claimant.

The Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the claim without consideration, citing the parties' agreement to refer disputes to arbitration under the rules of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA).

In response, the Claimant argued that the arbitration clauses had not been concluded. In support thereof, the Claimant referred to the fact that the parties had used the BARECON‑2001 form for bareboat charters but had not specified in Box 35 (dispute resolution) which option they had chosen. Box 35 provides for the following options:

🔘 Option (a) – dispute resolution in accordance with the rules of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA);

🔘 Option (b) – dispute resolution in accordance with the rules of the Society of Maritime Arbitrators (SMA);

🔘 Option (c) – dispute resolution in arbitration at a place agreed by the parties and in accordance with the procedures applicable at that place.

In addition, in the Claimant's view, the dispute could not be referred to arbitration due to the imposition of restrictive measures against Russia, which, as the Claimant alleged, restrict its access to justice in proceedings under LMAA rules in London.

The court rejected the Claimant's objections, relying on the following circumstances:

👀 In violation of the principle of interpretation in favor of the validity of arbitration agreements (ad favorem validitatis), the Claimant failed to provide evidence that any interpretation of the arbitration clause would render it invalid and/or unenforceable (para. 26 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Resolution No. 53 of 10 December 2019);

👀 The parties waived options (b) and (c) in Box 35 of the BARECON‑2001 form on dispute resolution, since in the text of the agreements themselves they elected option (a) at the time of signing, i.e., they agreed to arbitration under LMAA rules. Moreover, the parties did not specify in the agreements any "other arbitration institutions or courts" other than LMAA, so their choice is unambiguous;

👀 The Claimant is registered in Cyprus. At the same time, it did not provide evidence that the restrictive measures impede its access to justice or the consideration of the dispute in the arbitration agreed upon by the parties under LMAA rules. Nor is there evidence that restrictive measures have been imposed on the parties to the dispute.

Thus, the court dismissed the Cypriot company's claim against the Russian Respondent without consideration, based on the Respondent's reliance on the arbitration clauses in the agreements.

📎 The ruling can be found here.

According to the case file, today the ruling was upheld by the court of appeal. At the time of publication of this post, the decision had not yet been published.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court stresses that the Lugovoy Law cannot be applied automatically or expansively, leaving Finnish company’s claim against Russian entity without consideration

Finnish company TM System Finland Oy (claimant), as supplier, and Russian JSC ILIM Group (respondent), as purchaser, entered into a supply and services agreement as part of a project to construct a pulp and paper mill in Ust-Ilimsk. The agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the ICC Rules, with Geneva as the seat of arbitration.

Despite the arbitration clause, the claimant brought an action before the St Petersburg Commercial Court and Leningrad Region Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court. In support of the Russian state court’s jurisdiction, the claimant argued the following:

👀The arbitration clause was unenforceable because a dispute involving Russian parties could not be heard fairly and impartially in a foreign state that had imposed restrictive measures;

👀The parties’ contractual relationship had a close connection with Russia, and therefore the Russian courts had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The court rejected the claimant’s arguments, relying on the following considerations:

🔘Exclusive jurisdiction of a Russian court may arise where “the legal fact of the imposition of restrictive measures against Russian citizens and Russian legal entities is the direct cause of the dispute” and the Russian party is prevented from accessing justice in the foreign state”;

🔘In light of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation’s guidance in Rulings No. 999-O of 29 April 2025 and No. 2615-O of 14 October 2025, Article 248.1 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation “does not provide for the automatic establishment of exclusive jurisdiction of Russian arbitrazh (commercial) courts”. The court must establish not only the subject matter and parties to the dispute, but also comprehensively examine the circumstances and identify other criteria necessary to ensure that all parties’ right to judicial protection is properly exercised;

🔘The claimant failed to provide evidence of any impediment to access to justice in proceedings conducted pursuant to the arbitration clause;

🔘“Essentially, in its statement of claim, the claimant seeks to establish on behalf of the respondent that the forum selection agreement cannot be performed, relying on restrictive measures imposed by foreign states against Russian companies.” At the same time, Switzerland, the seat of arbitration, had not imposed sanctions on the claimant. The claimant was also not a Russian legal entity, and no other evidence was provided that the restrictive measures directly affected the claimant or its ability to commence arbitration.

Accordingly, the court held that the parties’ arbitration agreement was enforceable and that there were no grounds for establishing exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The St Petersburg Commercial Court and Leningrad Region Commercial Court therefore left the Finnish claimant’s action without consideration.

📎The judicial act is available at the link.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

⚖️ An arbitral tribunal’s failure to take into account a set-off claim does not constitute grounds for setting aside the award where the applicable rules require a set-off to be asserted only by way of a counterclaim

LLC “GAMMA” (the Applicant), as the supplier, and JSC “NIKIMT-Atomstroy” (the Interested Party), as the purchaser, entered into a contract for the supply of generator units to the construction site of the El Dabaa Nuclear Power Plant in the Arab Republic of Egypt (the Contract). The Contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration by the Arbitration Center at the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP).

Due to the delayed payment for the goods, the Applicant commenced arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause, seeking payment from the Interested Party of approximately RUB 20 million in outstanding amounts for the goods supplied, contractual penalties, and arbitration costs.

In the course of the arbitration, the Interested Party asserted a set-off of mutual claims arising from the Applicant’s failure to deliver the full quantity of goods and its delivery of incomplete equipment.

Under the Contract, the Applicant was required to pay the Interested Party a contractual penalty equal to 10% of the value of the incomplete goods.

The Interested Party stated that it had previously sent the Applicant a claim demanding payment of the contractual penalty, but the Applicant had failed to satisfy the claim.

The arbitral tribunal granted the Applicant’s claims in full. At the same time, the arbitrators rejected the Interested Party’s set-off argument, stating that under the applicable arbitration rules, a set-off had to be asserted in the form of a counterclaim, whereas the Interested Party had not filed a counterclaim.

As the Interested Party failed to comply with the arbitral award voluntarily, the Applicant applied to the Arbitrazh Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan for the issuance of a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral award.

The Interested Party filed a counter-application seeking partial setting aside of the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had refused to consider its set-off claim. According to the Interested Party, enforcement of an arbitral award rendered without taking into account the set-off/netting of mutual obligations would violate the public policy of the Russian Federation, the principles of proportionality of civil liability, and the Interested Party’s right to a comprehensive and objective consideration of the case.

The Arbitrazh Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan rejected the Interested Party’s arguments.

🔘The court held that the Interested Party’s arguments were aimed at having the arbitral award reviewed on the merits, which is impermissible.

🔘The Interested Party had failed to provide evidence of the exceptional statutory grounds required for setting aside an arbitral award.

Accordingly, the court issued a writ of execution for the compulsory enforcement of the arbitral award.

📎The full text of the ruling is available here.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

Recipe for Failure When Seeking to Set Aside an Arbitral Award:
1️⃣ Hope that the arbitrators will figure out on their own to request evidence;
2️⃣ File to set aside the award;
3️⃣ Voluntarily comply with the award on your own while the set-aside proceedings are ongoing

LLC "Sfera" (the applicant) filed a petition with the Commercial Court of the city of Moscow to set aside an award rendered by the Arbitral Institution at the Russian Union of Mechanical Engineers. The award had recovered from JSC "Tupolev" (the interested party) in favor of the applicant: RUB 20,000 in damages, RUB 1,613.25 in arbitration fees, and RUB 20,000 in legal representative costs — with the remainder of the claim dismissed.

Among other things, the applicant argued that it had been deprived of the right to a fair hearing because the arbitral tribunal had not requested necessary evidence on its own.

After examining the applicant's arguments, the Commercial Court of the city of Moscow denied the petition and upheld the arbitral award.

Referring to the arbitral institution's rules, the court stated that the arbitral tribunal has the right, but not the obligation, to invite the parties to submit additional evidence; nor is it required to obtain evidence on its own initiative if the parties themselves have not shown due diligence. The arbitral case file contained no evidence that the applicant had requested the tribunal to obtain evidence or to hold an oral hearing for that purpose.

On the contrary, the applicant neither claimed that it was unable to obtain the additional materials independently nor asked the arbitral tribunal for assistance in securing them.

The Commercial Court of the city of Moscow noted that denying a claim for lack of proof does not violate the right to judicial protection — it is simply the result of the allocation of the burden of proof, which is consistent with the principles of adversarial proceedings and party autonomy.

The court specifically emphasized that the arbitral tribunal had examined the submitted documents, assessed them, and provided specific reasons why they were deemed insufficient.

The court also took into account that the interested party had voluntarily complied with the award during the set-aside proceedings. Therefore, the court concluded that the applicant's rights in the satisfied portion had already been restored, and challenging the award as to the remainder effectively sought a substantive review of the tribunal's findings — which is impermissible.

📎 The full text of the judicial act is available here.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here

☝️International Bar Association Publishes Recommendations on Third-Party Participation in Investment Arbitration

The Investment Arbitration Subcommittee of the International Bar Association (IBA) has published a report and recommendations on the participation of third parties (i.e., persons who are not direct parties to the dispute) in investment arbitration.

The report's findings are based on a study of 135 investment arbitrations conducted up to December 11, 2024.

🔘 A key trend is the significant increase in third-party participation applications over the past two decades, particularly between 2015 and 2019.

The report notes that third-party involvement can enhance the legitimacy and transparency of the process, as well as assist the arbitral tribunal in addressing issues affecting the public interest.

The report outlines two main areas for further work:

1️⃣ Developing clearer procedural requirements for third-party participation in the process – possibly including guidance on the limits of the arbitral tribunal's authority to invite third parties on its own initiative to submit applications to join the proceedings;

2️⃣ Developing provisions on procedural safeguards (in particular, confidentiality measures) to prevent third parties from disrupting the course of the proceedings.

Based on the study's findings, the IBA concluded that arbitrators generally have the authority to accept third-party applications, even if the relevant investment treaty or rules do not expressly provide for such a possibility. However, there is no uniform approach to how this authority is exercised, particularly with regard to disclosure of information and whether arbitrators may invite third parties to submit applications ex officio.

The IBA does not provide clear recommendations on the allocation of costs when a third party participates in the proceedings, acknowledging that arbitral practice remains inconsistent.

At the same time, the IBA considers that the approach to this issue may vary depending on whether the third party joined the proceedings voluntarily or was invited to participate by the arbitral tribunal or a party.

📎 The full press release is available here.

TRANSLATED BY AI
Original see here.